Disintegration Technologies – Impacts on Biogas Process and Profitability
Dr. Britt Schumacher, Tino Barchmann, Dr. Jan Liebetrau
IBBA-Workshop ‚Pretreatment of lignocellulosic substrates for biogas production‘
Malmö/Sweden, 10th of September 2015
DBFZ – Development, Mission, Structure
2
Development:
• Founded on 28th February 2008 in Berlin as gemeinnützige GmbH
• Sole shareholder: Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the
Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL)
Mission:
The key scientific mission of the DBFZ is to provide wide-ranging support for
the efficient integration of biomass as a valuable resource for sustainable
energy supply based on applied scientific research.
Structure:
About 200 employees until 12/2014 in the
administration and the four research departments.
General Management:
Prof. Dr. mont. Michael Nelles (scientific)
Daniel Mayer (administrative)
Fig.: DBFZ
Research focus areas and structure
3
The four research focus areas
• Systemic contribution of biomass
• Anaerobic processes
• Processes for chemical bioenergy sources and motor fuels
• Intelligent biomass heating technologies
• Catalytic emission control
Organizational structure: the four research departments Applied class research along the entire supply chain
Biochemical Conversion Department
4
Research focus areas /working groups
• Characterization and design of anaerobic processes
• Process monitoring and simulation
• Biogas technology
• System optimization
• UFZ Working Group „MicAS“
Research services (selection)
• Discontinuous and continuous AD-Test up to full scale
• Process development for special substrates
• Consulting
• Model-based process simulations
• Acquisition of data on biogas plants in Germany
• Emission measurements and leak detection
• Ecological and economic assessment
• Policy advice for the biogas sector
Head of
Department Dr. -Ing. Jan Liebetrau
Equipment – lab-/full-scale digesters
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 5
DBFZ
DBFZ DBFZ
DBFZ
DBFZ
DBFZ
SE.Biomethane
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 6
Small but efficient –Cost and Energy efficient BioMethane Production
Supported by: German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) (FKZ 22028412)
Partners: Ventury GmbH Energieanlagen (Germany), Poland, Sweden
Duration: 02/2013 – 04/2016
Focus: auto-hydrolysis, thermal-pressure-hydrolysis, plug flow digestion of straw, dung, gas purification
DBFZ
DBFZ DBFZ DBFZ DBFZ
Disintegration Technologies
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 7
Disintegration – Goals & Challenges
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 8
• increase of the degradation kinetics and/or biogas potential caused by
disintegration of cells and reduction of the particle size
• efficient capacity use of the digester (small plants, high loading rate)
• avoiding of floating and sinking layers
• enhancement of the management and automation of the feed-in (stirring,
pumping)
• change of viscosity and change of mixing properties
• challenge for designer, manufacturer and operator of disintegration units is
the proof of the efficiency changes in cost and energy under full scale
conditions
Disintegration on Agricultural Biogas Plants
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 9
Options for Disintegration
Disintegration – Methods´Overview
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 10
Physical Methods
• disintegration by size reduction or milling
• thermal treatment with hot water, steam or hydrolysis with heat and steam
• microwaves and ultrasound treatment
Chemical Methods
• utilization of acids or bases, oxidation
Biological Methods
• utilization of microorganisms as additives for ensiling (substrat´s
conservation) to minimize storage loss
• hydrolytic microorganisms or enzymes e.g. for substrates with high content
of proteins or ligno-cellulose
Dis-/Advantages of Disintegration
• Enhanced biogas production
• Utilization of excess heat (e.g. CHP unit) is positive for energy balance
• Optionally the energy consumption of agitators and pumps can be reduced
• Additional demand on thermal or/and electrical energy
• Additional costs (investment, costs of operation)
• Additional risk of technical failure
• The risk of acidification could appear, if the feed-in frequency of pretreated
substrate is too low
• Disintegration + shortened hydraulic retention time /increased organic
loading rate changes have to be made carefully and parameters of the
effluent should be analyzed to avoid process failure or capacity overload
• Experiences in practice are often limited to a few biogas plants, except for
macerators
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 11
Disintegration Technologies in Germany
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 12
• Appr. 7500 biogas plants were operated in Germany in 2012
• 6909 biogas plants got a questionnaire of DBFZ
• 980 operators gave a feedback
• 148 disintegration technologies were stated for 123 biogas plants
Operator´s survey – biogas sector;
DBFZ: Stromerzeugung aus Biomasse, 03MAP250, 06/2013 (data 2012)
Disintegration Technologies
Impacts on Biogas Process
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 13
DBFZ DBFZ
Discontinuous AD
Acceleration or Enhancement
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 14
acceleration is not interesting for biogas plants with long hydraulic retention time or
easy degradable substrates
Continuous AD
Enhancement – losses – process failure
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 15
Interaction of disintegration and mixing
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 16
lab-scale CSTR full-scale CSTR
completely mixed partially mixed
dead zone
+/- 30%?
HRT
OLR
viscosity <-> volume dead zone?
Major impact of disintegration in
imperfect system?
Lab experiments show limited effect?
+/- 30%?
Dis-/Advantages of different scales & tests
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 17
Lab batch Lab conti Full scale
Time requirement ~ 35 d month month
Amount of substrate low medium high
Substrate´s quality high high/varying varying
Costs low medium high
Parallels easy manageable seldom
Process stability/ synergistic effects no yes, partially yes
Rheology (Impact of mixing detectable) no ?? yes
Lack of nutrients/ inhibition detectable no yes yes
Mono-fermentation no yes yes
…changes in gas yield are detectable small small/medium large
Relevance of results? low medium high
DBFZ
DBFZ DBFZ
Conclusion – Impacts on Biogas Process
• Two effects of disintegration: acceleration and/or enhancement of the
conversion of substrate
• Losses or process failure are also possible
• The effects are dependent on the composition of the substrate and the
disintegration method
• Acceleration is not interesting for biogas plants with long hydraulic retention
time or easy degradable substrates, because non-treated substrates might
reach the same degree of degradation
• Acceleration might be interesting for biogas plants with short hydraulic
retention time or hardly degradable substrates and/or the wish of capacity
expansion
• A real enhancement of the biogas yield is hardly to achieve
• Due to varying mixing, lab- and full-scale trials might show different results
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 18
Disintegration Technologies
Impacts on Profitability
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 19
Overview: Cost Structure – Biogas Plants
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 20
Capital-related costs consumption-related costs (e.g.
feedstock, energy demand)
operation-related costs
(manpower requirement,
service and maintenance) other costs (e.g. insurance)
Various samples for German biogas plants
I: 50kWel, 8000h, 95% cattle manure 5% maize
II: 75kWel, 7700h, 65% maize 35% manure
III: 75kWel, 8000h, 95% cattle manure 5% maize
IV: 75 kWel, 8000h, 65% maize 35% manure
V: 190kWel, 7700h, 65% maize 35% manure
VI: 190kWel, 8000h, 65% maize 35% manure
VII: 600kWel, 7700h, 65% maize 35% manure
VIII: 600kWel, 8000h, 65% maize 35% manure
IX: 600kWel, 7700h, 90% maize 10% manure
X: 600kWel, 8000h, 90% maize 10% manure
XI: biomethane plant 1333 m³ i.N./h
XII: biowaste plant 600kW, 8000h
Source: M. Trommler (2011), Nachhaltige Biogaserzeugung in Deutschland – Bewertung der
Wirkungen des EEG, Endbericht, Förderkennzeichen 10NR034.
Investment for Disintegration Technologies (D)
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 21
Investment depends on the manufacturer and the throughput (m³/h or t/h)
2 m³/h
1-7 t/h
25 - 80 m³/h
5 - 750 m³/h
20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
Exemplary calculation - assumptions
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 22
1. 500kWel CSTR, new constructed biogas plant (01.01.2016)
2. Calculation of production costs of electricity/investment calculation
(annuity method VDI 2067)
3. Invest cutting mill: 2*15,000€ = 30,000€
4. Invest thermal-pressure-hydrolysis (TPH): 500,000€
5. Lightweight construction depot for straw: 200,000€
6. Costs cattle manure: 0€/t FM
7. Costs straw: 80€/t; 100€/t; 120€/t FM
8. Revenue of surplus heat from CHP: 3 €ct/kWh th
9. Utilization of rejected heat of CHP for TPH, rise in heat demand for the
whole biogas plant from 20% to 40% for TPH.
10.Marketing of surplus heat: 50%
Exemplary calculation - assumptions
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 23
11.Gas yield cattle manure (KTBL): 16.8 m² CH4 N/t FM
12.Gas yield straw (KTBL) cutting mill: 162.54 m² CH4/t FM
13.Gas yield straw TPH: 180.42 m² CH4/t FM (enhancement compared to
cutting mill: 11% (Schumacher et al.))
14.Mix of substrate (fresh matter related): 7% straw, 93% cattle manure
VDI 2067: Economic efficiency of building installations – fundamentals and economic calculation, Beuth
Verlag, Sept. 2000
KTBL: Faustzahlen Biogas, 2013
Schumacher et al.: Disintegration in the biogas sector – Technologies and effects, In: Bioresource Technology.
Bd. 168, p. 5, 2014
CSTR – continuous stirred tank reactor
CHP – combined heat and power plant
FM – fresh matter
th- thermal
Exemplary calculation
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 24
Conclusion – Impacts on profitability
• Mechanical pre-treatment is State-of-the-Art, but energy demand as well as
operational costs are dependent on the substrate and should be reduced
• High expectations in Thermal-Pressure-Hydrolysis (TPH) etc., but the high
energy demand, high invest and technical design are challenging
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 25
Conclusion
• disintegration: can lead to accelerated and/or enhanced conversion of
substrate or losses of substrate
• case-by-case calculations have to be made for every biogas plant,
to reveal the limits of profitability
• variables are e.g.:
• composition of substrate/substrate´s mixture,
• substrate´s costs (logistics),
• available treatment units (e.g. invest, its energy consumption, wear and
tear),
• reactor design (including mixing),
• hydraulic retention time,
• usage of digestate (logistics) etc…
Britt Schumacher et al., IBBA-workshop 10.09.2015, Malmö, Sweden 26
DBFZ Deutsches
Biomasseforschungszentrum
gemeinnützige GmbH
Torgauer Straße 116
D-04347 Leipzig
Tel.: +49 (0)341 2434 – 112
E-Mail: [email protected]
www.dbfz.de
Contact
Dr. Britt Schumacher
Tel. +49 (0)341 2434 – 540
E-Mail: [email protected]
Thank you for your attention!